User talk:Stifle/Archive 0908a

English

I explained the NLT rule, and advised him to retract his comment, and save everyone the drama.--CreazySuit (talk) 03:09, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Stifle (talk) 08:28, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Desislava

I am sorry but I don't understand of computers and don't know how to use that wizard. The article was Desislava of Bulgaria which you have redirected to Ivan Alexander of Bulgaria ([1]). If you want to, move my answer to my talk page and we might discuss the matter only there. --Gligan (talk) 09:36, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I see. Wikipedia guidelines on biographies state that non-notable relatives of notable people should be mentioned in the article about the notable person. As Desislava does not seem notable on her own, I have redirected that page as you indicated. Feel free to write about her in a section of Ivan Alexander of Bulgaria. Stifle (talk) 09:40, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

My warning

I've replied at my page regarding the warning you gave me. I would appreciate it if you removed the warning since you clearly haven't researched the events and paid close enough attention to what was occurring. — Realist² 13:23, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Lispeth

Hi.

I inserted a protest against your deletion of Lispeth in the discussion page of that article. It occurs to me that I might have left it here...

I don't have much wikipedia etiquette as yet, so excuse me if I have been impolite.

MacAuslan (talk) 13:59, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

While I'm happy to answer questions, it looks like your question could have been answered and resolved more quickly if you had used my message wizard. It's linked as "Talk" after my name and at the top of my talk page. Why not try it next time? Stifle (talk) 14:20, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kenny Toal

One reason I restored Kenny Toal after the author blanked it was that it was the lead page for the joint AFD. What shall we do now - is there a way to change the title of the AfD to "Pam Royle"? or perhaps best if you close that AfD and I relist Pam Royle separately? Regards, JohnCD (talk) 14:39, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Since User:Wknight94 has closed it I think it's best to relist Pam Royle separately. Stifle (talk) 15:31, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Face Fault

Could I have a copy of the article, please? My Email is at westsouthrim@gmail.com. Westrim (talk) 15:59, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Please set up and confirm your email address. Stifle (talk) 16:01, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Done. Westrim (talk) 16:09, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually, you haven't. But I'll just send it the normal way. Stifle (talk) 18:04, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Deletion decision on article renamed to "Libertarians Perspectives on Revolution"

In closing deletion debates, I hope you are taking into consideration changes made to the article after the early votes are cast. EVCM (talk) 16:12, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Did you notice that the WP:OR poorly sourced article "Anarcho-capitalist perspectives on violent revolution" had been changed to "Libertarians perspectives on revolution" which was written well-within wikipedia policies?

I just forgot to keep the html of the final version or I would remake that second article as "Libertarian perspectives on revolution" (without the "s"). If you would give me the latest html, I will do so.

Otherwise I'm going to have to contest it here. Thanks. Carol in dc Carol Moore 17:20, 1 September 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}

Thank you for your message. In future, please sign your messages by typing ~~~~ at the end.

While I'm happy to answer questions, it looks like your question could have been answered and resolved more quickly if you had used my message wizard. It's linked as "Talk" after my name and at the top of my talk page. Why not try it next time?

I have restored Anarcho-capitalist perspectives on revolution. Please move it to whichever title you have decided you want it at. Stifle (talk) 18:02, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

That's a nice wizard. I've never seen anything on Wikipedia like that before. EVCM (talk) 18:10, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! Don't know why my signature didn't take. Carol Moore 18:27, 1 September 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}

Girls At The Cairo National Stadium

Can you please explain why this article was deleted? The source you cited for its rationale states that there was no consensus... — BQZip01 — ^talk 18:25, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I linked the wrong page. Should have been Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Girls At The Cairo National Stadium (3rd nomination). Stifle (talk) 18:29, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/DJ IR

I think you forgo to delete the other two articles nominated. I went ahead and deleted them for you, since you closed it. Sorry if this is in the wrong place, your "wizard" is a bit too byzantine for me. seresin ( ¡? ) 19:55, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Stifle (talk) 20:18, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Request for arbitration

I have added you as a party to Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Georgewilliamherbert, as you were the subject of the comments which resulted in Giano II being blocked. John254 21:28, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Insert section name here

Hey, I generally find locking horns in the trenches can be come rather emotionally draining after a while, with folks often digging in to adversarial positions. Given the recent dustup with Peter Damian and this one, you may be getting your hackles raised more easily than you thought. I have been impressed at how quickly relations with opponents/the 'other side' at AfD can improve once moving away from the venue. Collaborative editing is a great remedy for this. Its something worth thinking about if you do find yourself slipping into adversarial mde too quickly. I'll see if I have time to look at the AfD backlog too. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:36, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your message. I've withdrawn that other AFD and I think cutting back on WP editing for a while may help. Stifle (talk) 10:04, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

(sigh) at the end of the day, I guess it's worth noting that WP doesn't put food on the table nor contribute to a roof over one's head; thus there should be some other gain that is as satisfying happening (funnily enough, there's about half a dozen important IRL things I should be looking at even as I write this!). Anyway, do what you have to do to recharge etc. and good luck/chin up. I am sure you'll figure it out. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:45, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

SB Alliance

Hello,

I am writting you to ask you to reconsider the page SB Alliance. Please read the content it will take you 1 minute. It'a an academic article about an initiative supported by the UNITED NATIONS that makes Wikipedia less partisan on the subject of sustainability. Please read it.

All the best,

AP —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.182.4.13 (talk) 02:14, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your message. In future, please sign your messages by typing ~~~~ at the end.

While I'm happy to answer questions, it looks like your question could have been answered and resolved more quickly if you had used my message wizard. It's linked as "Talk" after my name and at the top of my talk page. Why not try it next time?

The consensus of the community at the deletion discussion was that the article should be deleted. Please be aware that the comments of unregistered and very new users are not usually considered at deletion discussions, and that AFD is not a vote. If you wish to challenge the outcome of the deletion discussion, please use deletion review. Stifle (talk) 10:11, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you

I just wanted to say thank you for the good grace and collaborative spirit you showed by this [2] - AfDs can get very heated, so it is refreshing to see a nominator prepared to close in this way. Best wishes, DuncanHill (talk) 10:07, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. I am often wrong and am glad to correct mistakes when possible. Stifle (talk) 10:11, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Unaddressed "parcel"

Hi Stifle. I noticed you said "I apologize for my actions in this matter" on the RFAR page. But... see, it's pointless, surely, to apologize to nobody in particular. Well, I think it is. Who is the addressee of your apology? The community? (why?) The arbitration committee? (double why?) Or the unsubstantial air? I'm completely assuming that you're sincere about wanting to apologize—if I didn't believe that, I wouldn't bother to write this. But please consider addressing your apology to the person actually offended. [3] [4])
Please note that I'm by no means asking, or telling, you to apologize to Peter Damian. I don't think anybody ought to ask another person to apologize, ever. All I'm doing is pointing out that you seem to be trying to apologize—for what you did to Peter Damian—but missing the mark. You've posted a parcel without an address on it. I think it's bound to get lost in the mails. Bishonen | talk 14:33, 2 September 2008 (UTC).

Well, he's invoked a right to vanish, and his email is not enabled so I couldn't contact him directly. I've left a message for him as you suggested. Just don't set Bishzilla on me ;) Stifle (talk) 14:35, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Inuyasha

No protection of Inuyasha is necessary any more because we started discussion. Collectonian and I misunderstood each other. We both no longer have an intention of reverting the page. Would you please unlock the protection? Thank you very much.--Michael Friedrich (talk) 16:27, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Done, thanks for dropping by. Stifle (talk) 17:32, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Apology

Many thanks for your gracious apology. Accepted of course, and my apologies in return for overreacting. I hope some good comes of this. I haven't decided whether to return yet, but that is for different reasons than this. Thanks again. Peter Damian (talk) 17:41, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Your decision in a deletion review

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Swiftfuel_(2nd_nomination)

You closed the deletion debate on Swiftfuel with a keep decision without explanation. There was no strong consensus to keep the article, and every single !voter acknowledged the paucity of the information available to the topic, and at least one keep argument stemmed from WP:PRESERVE rather than a justification to keep the article. This logic suggests that more explanation would be required than a simple assertion.

I'd like you to walk me through your rationale in detail, as well as your analysis of the arguments, especially how you came to the conclusion that a keep decision was so self explanatory that it required no additional explanation before I ask for comment in a deletion review.

Thanks

HatlessAtless (talk) 17:56, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Just to be clear, I am asking for your thought process on why the keep decision required no explanation. Even though I disagree with that decision, I don't have a problem with it if it turns out that my own distaste for the article is making me not see why it was deleted. HatlessAtless (talk) 18:00, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps I should have made it a no consensus closure rather than a keep (and I've amended the closure thusly). Three editors argued to delete:

1. There was your nomination.
2. N Shar argued a very weak delete because there was one source, saying that keeping "would not be a disaster".
3. Xymmax argued a weak delete because while there are sources, they don't verify all that's in the article.

And three argued to keep:

1. Ningauble had a relatively sound rationale, although there was some notion of WP:EFFORT about it.
2. 23skidoo argued based on WP:NOTAGAIN.
3. And SVresolution provided a detailed rationale for keeping.

In summary, the issues with the article are not insurmountable, and there is no overarching policy reason for deletion. There was one regular delete, and two weak deletes, along with one regular keep, and two with somewhat weak arguments. I can't distill a consensus to delete from that. You are, of course, welcome to take the matter to DRV. Stifle (talk) 18:24, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your articulate and quick reply. SVresolution did indeed provide detailed rationale for keeping, but after discussion, he acknowledged the underlying issues with the article The article, as a standalone, might be premature, and the information might be best placed somewhere else. I think that acknowledgment is what I keyed in on. I'll have to think about this for a bit to see if it warrants taking to DRV. HatlessAtless (talk) 18:57, 2 September 2008 (UTC)